State lawmakers address public records flap

State Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, left, accompanied by Senate Budget Committee chairman Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, announced that the Senate will take up a constitutional amendment to address a budget bill that threatens public access to information held by local governments. RICH PEDRONCELLI, AP

Amending the act

•The California Public Records Act, enacted in 1968, provides broad public access to government records.

•Two years ago, the Commission on State Mandates ruled that local governments could seek reimbursements from the state for complying with some provisions of the act. This is projected to enable cities, counties and districts to bill Sacramento.

•After Gov. Jerry Brown proposed suspending the act's provisions eligible for reimbursement, the Legislature passed AB76, which would make certain provisions of the act voluntary. The bill awaits Brown's signature.

• News organizations blasted the changes.

•In response, Assembly Speaker John A. Pérez said the Assembly would vote on a new bill that excludes the changes. Senate Leader Darrell Steinberg, however, said his house won't vote on the bill unless it receives word that local governments are providing public records.

Reporting by Brian Joseph, Orange County Register

SACRAMENTO – A firestorm of criticism over recently approved changes to the California Public Records Act had legislators squirming Wednesday, but leaders of the Assembly and Senate offered dramatically different responses on the suddenly red-hot controversy.

Speaker John A. Pérez announced that the Assembly on Thursday would take up a new budget trailer bill that excludes the changes. Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, however, said his house would not pass the new proposal, SB71, unless it receives word that local governments are not voluntarily handing over public records. In the meantime, Steinberg said the Senate would pursue next week a constitutional amendment specifying that compliance with the public records law does not constitute a reimbursable mandate.

In January, as part of his budget plan, Gov. Jerry Brown proposed changes to the Public Records Act, which grants people broad rights to inspect documents held by California governments, because the Commission on State Mandates ruled two years ago that cities, counties and special districts could seek reimbursement from the state for complying with certain provisions of the act. That ruling is projected to allow local governments to bill the state for tens of millions of dollars, which is a problem for a California government that's still trying to get its fiscal house in order.

Initially, the Assembly rejected the governor's plan while the Senate supported it. Eventually, the Assembly, Senate and governor agreed to a compromise based on Brown's initial idea. The compromise was included in a budget trailer bill, AB76, which was approved by both houses of the Legislature last week and now awaits the governor's signature.

In the days since then, public information advocates and news organizations across the state have lambasted the proposal, saying it will "neuter" or "eviscerate" the state's public records law.

It became clear the criticism was getting to legislators and staff by Wednesday afternoon, when Assembly aides held a "background briefing" with reporters to stress that the Assembly had initially opposed the governor's proposal, which they noted had been discussed since January. Shortly thereafter, Pérez put out a news release announcing a new version of the trailer bill would be drafted without the sections related to the public records law.

"To be clear, this means that the California Public Records Act will remain intact without any changes as part of the budget – consistent with the Assembly's original action," said Pérez, D-Los Angeles, in the news release.

About an hour later, Steinberg, D-Sacramento, and the chairman of the Senate budget committee, Sen. Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, held a news conference of their own where they announced their intention to hold the Assembly bill and pursue a constitutional amendment for, perhaps, the June 2014 ballot. They also stressed that the Legislature's action last week was not intended to undermine government transparency, but rather to address what they termed as an unnecessary expense.

"This controversy was never about weakening the Public Records Act," Steinberg said. "It is instead about whether state taxpayers should pay the bill for what city and county officials should be doing on their own."

About an hour after the Senate's news conference, Brown released a statement on the Public Records Act: that said, in its entirety, "We all agree that Californians have a right to know and should continue to have prompt access to public records, and I support enshrining these protections in California's constitution."

State Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, left, accompanied by Senate Budget Committee chairman Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, announced that the Senate will take up a constitutional amendment to address a budget bill that threatens public access to information held by local governments. RICH PEDRONCELLI, AP
In this photo taken June 11, Gov. Jerry Brown discusses the budget compromise reached with Democratic leaders, Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, left, and Assembly Speaker John Perez, D-Los Angeles, during a Capitol news conference. RICH PEDRONCELLI, AP

1 of

User Agreement

Keep it civil and stay on topic. No profanity, vulgarity, racial
slurs or personal attacks. People who harass others or joke about
tragedies will be blocked. By posting your comment, you agree to
allow Orange County Register Communications, Inc. the right to
republish your name and comment in additional Register publications
without any notification or payment.